Exclusive: 8-Month Pregnant Woman Violently Body-Slammed To Ground By Cop Gets $80,000, City Settles Lawsuit Exclusive: 8-Month Pregnant Woman Violently Body-Slammed To Ground By Cop Gets $80,000, City Settles Lawsuit
By Martin Hill
February 14, 2017


LibertyFight.com is proud to present an exclusive interview with the attorney who represented Charlena Michelle Cooks. This case went super-viral worldwide when this shocking and outrageous video was first released, but the actual conclusion and settlement of this case has not been reported until today.

Cooks was previously represented by civil rights Attorney Caree Harper, a black female former LAPD officer, as we reported in 2015. Cooks and her attorney at the time then reported that the after she filed the complaint against the officer, the creepy cop then began driving by her house and waving at her while she sat on the front porch with her kids. [That article is reprinted below.]

Cooks later hired Jerry Steering, a civil rights lawyer from Newport Beach, who took up the case.

The dispute began in an elementary school parking lot, after a white woman called police on Cooks because she didn't like the way she was driving.

Officer Ronan Colleoc (aka "Frenchie") showed up and immediately confronted Cooks, and became enraged when she refused to show ID. Cooks, who was simply dropping her young daughter off at school, correctly stated that she had not committed a crime and therefore was not obligated to show her ID. Officer Colleoc quickly escalated the situation needlessly to an unimaginably violent level, slamming the 8-month pregnant woman on the ground belly first and endangering the very life of her fetus, simply because Cooks had invoked her rights and refused to show her ID.

"We live in a total police state," Cooks attorney Jerry Steering said.

Here is the original video:

Steering said, however, that he does not believe race had anything to do with this case. He added that he doesn't think the video of the exchange between Cook and the officer necessarily looked too favorable towards his client. He said that he is not sure if a jury would have awarded Cooks $80,000.

Steering is quite an interesting character who said some shocking things about the legal system and the state of affairs in America.

"The law is the ultimate scam. There is no scam like the law. It is whatever the guys with the robes say it is," Steering declared.

"All constitutional law is made up by appeals courts or intermediate courts. Everyone who tells you different is a liar. It is made up," he continued.

"What is reasonable changes," he explained, for example what was reasonable in society in 1791, such as hanging a horse thief in the town square, would drastically differ today for a car thief.

Even what is considered reasonable suspicion by officers to demand ID is drastically different than it was only 20 years ago. They simply make it up as they go along.

"We live in a total police state," Steering declared.

"It's all made up. That's what judges do. That's what the judges role is."

Steering then asked me if I know what 'common law' is, and if I could define it. "Common law is, the judge makes the law," he said.

When I told him about my case in 2010, where two Texas Troopers demanded my ID under threat of arrest, Steering was shocked that the troopers bosses, the Texas Department of Public Safety, actually admitted wrongdoing in my case, because that is something that police almost never do.

In 2010, two Texas troopers demanded my ID with no probable cause, and threatened to arrest me if I did not comply- identical to this Michelle Cooks case. When I asked why he thinks I have to show him my ID, the maniacal trooper replied "I'm the one with the badge and the gun," essentially threatening violence or death if I did not comply. As I document on my website DontWakeMeUp.org, I recorded both officers and then filed state and federal civil rights complaints afterwards. To their credit, The Texas Department of Public Safety quickly admitted wrongdoing in writing on behalf of the two officers only one month after an internal affairs complaint was filed against the officers in November 2010. The admission letter, dated December 20, 2010 and signed by Captain Kenneth Plunk of the Waco Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division, stated that "corrective action was needed" against both officers and that "additional training has been taken."

They were then forced to admit during discovery in a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit that "The passenger is under no obligation to comply with request" for ID. This issue is not complicated.

However, Steering explained that long-established cases such as Brown v. Texas (1979) Kolender v. Lawson, (1983) have been undermined in part, but not entirely, by Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004).

My friend truck driver Kenny Capell of TN runs trucking a business with his wife hauling freight across the country. On April 15, 2014, while Kenny's wife was driving and he was off duty sleeping, Georgia police officer Leigh A. Parsons woke Kenny up out of the sleeper berth and demanded his ID with no probable cause at a weigh station on I-75 in Ringgold, GA. The same officer had done this a month prior so this time, Kenny refused on principal to show the cop his ID since she had no legal justification and no warrant. Kenny was then arrested, handcuffed, jailed and kept in a cage until he was bailed out twelve hours later. Charged with the criminal offense of 'obstruction of justice,' Capell fought it in court and after stalling nearly a near, the GA prosecutor dropped the case. [See Man Charged with 'Obstruction of Justice' in Georgia For Refusing Illegal ID Demand Wins, Has Criminal Case Dismissed By Witless Prosecutors.]

Mr. Steering has won million is settlements and verdicts for his clients and has quite an impressive and accomplished record. His website is SteeringLaw.com.

He has a very principled and aggressive stance against the police state and standing up for the people's rights.

Steering pointed out that in People v. Quiroga (1993), the court ruled that refusal to disclose one's identity constitutes 'obstruction of an officer' only if one has been arrested for a felony.

16 Cal.App.4th 961, the Court held that refusal to disclose one's identity following a felony arrest constituted obstructing an officer: "These statutory provisions lead to the conclusion that a refusal to disclose personal identification following arrest for a misdemeanor or infraction cannot constitute a violation of [California] Penal Code section 148 ... Section 148 can reasonably be construed as applying to nondisclosure of identity following arrest for felonies, but not minor offenses, if this exception applies to the provisions cited above dealing with arrests for minor offenses. — 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 970 Similar refusal following arrest for a misdemeanor or infraction did not violate the statute because the Legislature had "established other ways of dealing with such nondisclosure".

If the cops ever screwed with me, I would be sure to contact him, and I suggest anyone in California do the same. I highly suggest you check out his website here.

His topics include titles such as,


In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, a case where a man in Texas refused to show police ID because there was no probable cause. The court noted "he was arrested for violation of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, 38.02(a) (1974), which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." However, the court reversed his conviction: "Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference."

The court concluded "The application of Tex.Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, Sec. 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed." [http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/47/case.html.]

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 369 (1983) states "probable cause, and nothing less, represents the point at which the interests of law enforcement justify subjecting an individual to any significant intrusion beyond that sanctioned in Terry. See also Kolender, 461 U.S. at 366-67 noting that states "cannot abridge this constitutional rule by making it a crime to refuse to answer police questions during a Terry encounter."

The Wikipedia page on Stop and identify statutes states "The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating. The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness."

You can read our previous story on the Cooks case below.

You can find the most recent articles from LibertyFight.com here.

To get notice of the latest material you can follow LibertyFight on Twitter or contact me to join our e-mail list.

NOTE: The 'DISQUS' feature has been added to this site so you can leave your comments below. No login is required, you can post as a guest.

WRK link: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/content/exclusive-8-month-pregnant-woman-violently-body-slammed-ground-cop-gets-80000-city-settles-l

Martin Hill is a Catholic paleo-conservative and civil rights advocate. In 2015, President Donald J. Trump in front of a live international TV audience, said Hill was "very committed" and "got a lot of energy," adding that "he's on our side" and "is a Trump guy." In addition to being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and The Daily Beast, Hill's work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 TV Los Angeles, The Press Enterprise, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened.com, Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Economic Policy Journal, FreedomsPhoenix, Haaretz, TMZ, Veterans Today, Jonathan Turley blog, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, National Motorists Association, RedState.com, AmericanFreePress.net, RomanCatholicReport.com, WorldNetDaily, HenryMakow.com, OverdriveOnline.com, Educate-Yourself.org, TexeMarrs.com, Dr. Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad radio show, InvestmentWatchBlog, Strike-The-Root.com, Antiwar.com, Mark Glenn's 'The Ugly Truth' Blog & radio show, Michael Hoffman's RevisionistHistory.org, John Friend's TheRealistReport.com, Sophia Smallstorm's Blog, DrDay.com, Pasadena Weekly, ActivistPost.com, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI AM 640, IamtheWitness.com, Redlands Daily Facts, SaveTheMales.ca, BlackBoxVoting, The Michael Badnarik Show, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense.com, FromTheTrenchesWorldReport.com, BeforeItsNews.com, The Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, CopBlock.org, DavidIcke.com, Whittier Daily News, KCLA FM Hollywood, The Fullerton Observer, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com, DontWakeMeUp.Org, RandPaukZionist.com and JohnInBarbados.com.

Here is the story from 2015:

Creepy Cop Who Attacked Pregnant Black Woman on Viral Video Now Stalking The Woman At Her Home
By Martin Hill
June 17, 2015

A police officer in Barstow California who was caught on video attacking a pregnant black woman has now reportedly begun stalking the victim, driving by her house and waving at the woman when she is on her front porch with her kids.

In the original incident, Charlena Michelle Cooks had dropped her daughter off at school when police approached her and demanded her ID. Since she had committed no crime and there was no probable cause, Cooks knew she was not required to show ID and refused, at which time the officer launched his viscious assault, which went viral as soon as the video was released. (The video is below.)

Attorney Caree Harper, who represents Cooks, is herself a decorated police officer and issued a statement about the harassment. Harper is amending the civil rights lawsuit to include intimidation from Officer Ronan Colleoc, (who also goes by the nickname "Frenchie", as pointed out in the lawsuit.)

A 2006 newspaper article about Colleoc states that he was born in New York, raised in France then came back to the states, served in the military and became a police officer in Barstow, where "He considered it a way to follow God's will".
Here is his LinkedIn page. He also served as a Barstow school resources officer giving tickets to little kids. Here is a Photo of him and the accompanying article about him.

You may remember Attorney Caree Harper from a previous high-profile case last year, when she represented the Marlene Mardella Pinnock, a 51 year old black grandmother who was beaten nearly half to death on the side of a Los Angeles freeway last year by crazed CHP officer Daniel L. Andrew. That case was settled without going to trial. In that case also, CHP officer Sean K. Taketa intimdated and harrassed motorist David Diaz, the music producer from Los Angeles man who had recorded the "excessive and brutal" attack from his car with his cellphone.

Harper told LibertyFight.com that in certain cases officers have been known to intimidate, harass and even batter those victims who have filed a civil rights lawsuit against them. She added that Barstow, CA police did not properly follow training standards which they are required to adhere to. Harper noted that she has represented a wide variety of clients including white police officers who have been discriminated against.

On June 12, Harper posted on Twitter: @AttyCareeHarper Jun 12 After filing lawsuit #CharlenaMichelleCooks is now subjected to harassment & intimidation from Officer COLLEOC -lawsuit will be amended."

The Defendants in the civil rights lawsuit include 'OFFICER RONAN COLLEOC (aka "Frenchie"), a Caucasian male, and at all relevant times was a sworn police officer with the Barstow Police Department in the County of San Bernardino in the State of California.. Defendant OFFICER J. SILVA, POLICE CHIEF ALBERT RAMIREZ, and the CITY OF BARSTOW.

The Barstow, CA Police Department website states, in part, "The Barstow Police Department services 40 square miles with a city population of 23,000. Interstates 15, 40, State Route 58 and Historic Route 66 run through our city. Because of our location and surrounding communities, the Barstow Police Department services approximately 60,000 people with a sworn force of 40 officers. Our officers are well trained and experienced in handling most of their investigations from the initial report to successful prosecution. In major investigations, we rely on highly trained detectives who have proven their abilities time and time again." They can be reached at their business office, (760) 255-5111. or Andrew Espinoza, Jr. Detective Sergeant at (760) 255-5181. Espinoza's "Division also has the responsibility of conducting follow-up investigations on all felonies crimes and criminal investigations where potential leads or suspects may develop." The Police Department Annex is located at 500 Melissa Ave., Barstow, CA 92311.

The Desert Dispatch reported: "The Barstow woman who filed a lawsuit against the Barstow Police Department earlier this week claims an officer drove by her home Friday morning and waved at her as she sat on her front porch. According to Caree Harper, attorney for Charlena Michelle Cooks, the lawsuit that she filed Thursday will be amended with an action for retaliation. Cooks claims one of the officers named in the lawsuit drove by her home at approximately 11:34 a.m. Friday and waved at her. "I just want this to stop," Cooks said. "Please, just leave me alone. This situation really affects me personally. I have three kids, my job is in Barstow, my life is here. Now I'm unable to come outside my home without fear." Lt. Mike Hunter said the Police Department was unaware of any such incident. He declined comment on the allegation. Harper told the Desert Dispatch the officer drove by Cooks' home as a means of striking fear in her client. "It's concerning that the officer felt bold enough to drive by (Cooks') house because it sends a bad message," Harper said. "it was really such a sarcastic gesture." Cooks said the officer's actions made her feel uncomfortable. "It's like he is letting me know 'I see you and I know where you're at,'" Cooks said. "I have seen him drive by my home several times but this is the first time he got my attention."

LibertyFight.com notes: I have quite a bit of experience in this matter of demands of compulsory ID by rogue police. In 2010, two Texas troopers demanded my ID with no probable cause, and threatened to arrest me if I did not comply- identical to this Michelle Cooks case. As I document on my website DontWakeMeUp.org, I recorded both officers and then filed state and federal civil rights complaints. The Texas Department of Public Safety admitted wrongdoing in writing on behalf of the two officers only one month after an internal affairs complaint was filed against the officers in November 2010. The admission letter, dated December 20, 2010 and signed by Captain Kenneth Plunk of the Waco Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division, stated that "corrective action was needed" against both officers and that "additional training has been taken." I then filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit against the scum, for damages, permanent injunction, and t o dissuade them from continuing this blatantly illegal practice. One of the internal police department documents which they were forced to release as a result of my lawsuit in initial disclosures revealed that the Texas Troopers officially admitted that "The passenger is under no obligation to comply with request" for ID. This issue is not complicated and the matter of compulsory ID has been to the U.S. Supreme Court countless times, most notably Brown V. Texas. The only police who demand ID without cause are rogue lawless criminals. They should be imprisoned.

Here is a photo of Charlena Michelle Cooks with her baby and a copy of the lawsuit against the Barstow, Calif. Police officers. Thank God the baby survived, and good job to Caree Harper for fighting for what's right.

Related LAPD Articles From LibertyFight.com:


You may contact me here.

Oppose Red Light Cameras! Traffic Cameras Archive Page

LibertyFight Archive of Filming Cops



California Launches Pilot Program To Charge Drivers By The Mile; Author admits law will "burden families"

Why everyone should fight their traffic tickets - every time.

How I beat a Speeding Ticket in California Superior Court of Appeals (Without A Lawyer) 8/19/14 [Featured on LewRockwell.com.]

It's Your Right: How to Fight a Traffic Ticket in California Through The Mail ('Trial By Declaration') 2/15/14 [Featured on EconomicPolicyJournal.com]

Requesting the "COUNTY SEAT" -An easy way to beat a traffic ticket using a pre-emptive measure

Outrageous L.A. Court Tells Defendants: "Traffic Ticket Trials Not Allowed" 6/24/14
BEWARE! Do not let any court clerk lie to you and tell you that traffic trials aren't allowed because you got an extension. This is 100% false, anyone who tells you that is a lying criminal.

How I beat a cell phone ticket in California [Article & video]

As Memory Fades, Motorists Start Paying L.A. County Red-light Camera Tickets Again, Even Though They Don't Have To 5/13/13

How I beat a $700 ticket in 30 seconds in court (Logbook ticket) [featured on WhatReallyHappened.com]

How To Fight A Toll-Road Citation in California

Carpool lanes in Los Angeles turned into toll roads: State takes federal cash and fleeces motorists [Featured on Infowars.com , WhatReallyHappened.com , and DavidIcke.com.

First Time Offenders Of Cashless Toll Roads Continue Receiving Penalty Fee Waivers in Orange County

How to get a 'fix it ticket' signed off in California for free

See also: Are You Required To Show ID or Answer Questions To Police and Other Government Agents Upon Demand? - by John-Henry Hill, M.D., Ph.D. (no relation.)

Be sure to see my meeting with President Trump:

Featured Articles From LibertyFight.com:


FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on LibertyFight.com may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC S. 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

You can follow LibertyFight.com on Twitter and re-tweet this article here.

comments powered by Disqus

Share this page: